Do Statin's really work?

[flyingfool]

I don't question whether or not they reduce cholesterol. I'm wonding if they really have the effect or the benefit that "they" have been telling us about.  That is that it will reduce your chances of heart attacks etc.

That is I recently read an article and the basics of it are that there are decades of experience with Statin's. And what are the outcomes?

The outcome is that a VERY high percentage I think if I remember right like 70% to 80% of the people having heart attacks and hardening of the artieries had NORMAL cholesterol levels.  Many as a result of Statins.  So if it is cholesterol that is the problem, why if we've had decades of lowered and normalized cholesterol has not there been a corresponding decrease in heart attacks? ESPECIALLY in those folks who have normal cholesterol levels?

But this article was asking the very basic question that it seems no one is asking.  And that is if all these decades of experience of lowering cholesterol has not resulted in the benefits, Is the cause something OTHER than cholesterol.

And in fact your body NEEDS cholesterol. In particular for proper brain function.  Is this the reason for increase dementia and Alzhiemers?  Are we starving our brain of the needed cholesterol due to statin use?

Also remember that the NUMBER 1 money maker for the Big Pharma companies are STATIN's.   And "they" seem to continue to recommend lower and lower cholesterol levels as being "normal".

One has to ask.  Are these things just a a scam to get people to buy more Statin drugs so they can make more money? The lower cholesterol mantra has been harping away for decades spending hundreds of Billions of dollars in the process. And it seemingly has had no effect what so ever. But no one seems to ask if we are barking up the wrong tree!

Einstein stated that one definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results."  Are we insane?

After all.  If the entire population is on a statin, the pharmicudical companies make HUGE profits.  Also the 95% average they use to determine "normal" cholesterol levels would increasingly go down as more and more people are on statins to artifically lower the average cholesterol level of the population. Which in turn would result in a recommendation for lower cholesterol levels to be quote unquote "normal".  Thus the self fulfilling prophecy continues.

I'm starting to think that with the heart attacks and hardening of the artieries not being impacated by lower cholesterol of the victims of heart attacks etc.  That in fact Cholesterol may NOT be the issue at all.

I'm seriously thinking of stopping my Statin.  As my levels were not outrageously high anyhow.  And I now excercise regularly and eat better etc.

[Claire_MHModerator]

Hi, folks,

At this point, we seem to have deviated from discussing the value of statins and/or diet in preventing/ameliorating CAD, and are now discussing what's appropriate for discussion instead.  

The purpose of this forum is to "discuss topics including cholesterol’s link to heart disease, how to maintain a low cholesterol diet, and treatment methods for lowering your cholesterol."  

Please bear in mind that all opinions are welcome, and have the potential to expand our knowledge, as long as they're respectfully expressed.  At the same time, it's important to remember that these discussions are not a substitute for medical advice; before making any changes to a prescribed regimen, be sure that you talk with your doctor to get his/her input on any issues raised here.

All that said, it looks like the original poster hasn't responded to the latest comments.  Although it's okay to discuss the role of statins here, as well as our current understanding of the role of cholesterol, we'll close this discussion now.  If you have a question or discussion you'd like to start, please click the "Post a question" button at the top of this page.  Thanks!

Claire

________________________________________________________
                                  
                                  ******** CLOSED DISCUSSION ********

                                          No more comments, please.
________________________________________________________

[grizzlybear3]

What I am saying is its OK to have a differing opinion. But to tell someone they shouldn't share their doubts over a prescribed treatment?    

[grizzlybear3]

Everyone should be able to join in on a discussion, and share their opinions and insight. The person who started this discussion has has every right to voice their questions and thoughts. Patients do have the right to discuss their medical treatments over the net, unless they live in North Korea where that right is taken away.

[erijon]

Just trying to point out that the numbers are not accurate, but many will use it to prove a point. Again, we don't argue the effectiveness of medical treatments here. There are many here that are on statins and we do not want to have discussions that may make them doubt the treatment they have been prescribed by those that are more qualified to do so.

[grizzlybear3]

Not sure what 1930 has to do with the Original posters' comments, but the original poster does bring up some excellent points for consideration.

[erijon]

Let me poke some holes in your thinking. A couple things to consider.

First, look at the change in lifestyles in that same time period. Look at how our diets have changed along with the availability of unhealthy fast foods coupled with an increase in obesity during the same period of time. The question to be asked is how much worse would our death rate be without our current treatment options including statins. Secondly, you have to consider that the standards for reporting cause of death were changed to what we have now in the mid 60s. As late as 1930 very few states reported cause of death and when they did it was usually incidence of age. Heart disease was not accurately reported until the current standards are in place so the numbers we're looking at are apples and oranges.

Also, there is only1 study that has an ARR of 1% and that was JUPITER. People who are ant-statin have been reporting that since the data came out but what they don't report is that it is acknowledged that the number is understated as JUPITER was ended early due to it's good results. The trial was designed to go 5 years but ended in 1.4 years. The projected ARR was 27% at the 5 year term and after another 7 years of follow up the ARR for a person with a 20% risk of heart disease stands at 89% with an NNT of 11, these are very good numbers.

You can read this for yourself;

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/statcalc.html

This is much like an ongoing discussion I used to participate in a couple years ago on another website, please remember Med Help is here to provide support and information on the topic of our communities. We are not here to second guess medical treatment, we are not doctors and we do not make people second guess their doctors so let's be careful what we post.

[grizzlybear3]

My comments above were meant for the original poster. My apology to Flycaster305.

[grizzlybear3]

There is data compiled by the NIH showing the decline in heart disease over the decades since the decline began around 1968. The original poster has made an observation that most of the general public does not recognize. That being  despite aggressive cholesterol lowering in our country, there has not been a corresponding drop in death from cardiovascular disease.

This would certainly raise eyebrows. But there are multiple things happening at once complicating the picture. Yet it is true, the decline rate 20 years prior, and 20 years after statins remained unchanged.

But at least death from heart disease has been declining since 1968 and that is good news. But statins didn't happen until 1987, so one has to ask why heart disease declined at the same rate for almost 20 years before statins came into the picture.

I do not have the answer and I'm not sure anybody does.

What we have today to testify to the effectiveness of statins are industry sponsored studies, which are under criticism for coming from a biased source. The manufacturer doing a study on its own product doesn't sit well with everyone.

We have industry funded studies showing a difference between two groups, Statin and placebo, showing a 1 to 2% absolute benefit for the statin group, BUT nobody on planet earth knows who was destined to have a heart attack and who wasn't, so measuring absolute prevention is, well, impossible.

To know absolutely for certain a statin prevented a fatal heart attack, we would have to have proof an individual would have suffered a fatal event had they not been taking the statin....can't be done.

[Flycaster305]

Do you have research studies to share that indicate statins aren't effective?

[flyingfool]

What I meant with my original post is more the broad scope.

That is with the MASSIVE and widespread use of statins in our nation.  We have NOT seen the corresponding decrease in heart disease and heart attacks and strokes etc.  Even though more and more people as the population as a whole are in fact keeping their blood cholesterol levels under control.  

if in fact blood level cholesterol was in fact the problem that we are told.  Then we should see a significant decline in the heart attacks and strokes.  Since we don't, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the question whether or not cholesterol was/is the culprit.

Are we as a medical comunity and a nation chasing the wrong rabbit?  Are we simply chasing our tail?

[Leedsmike]

Hi,
   I am on with atovastatin for the last 2 years and my lipid profile is slowly reducing but not a marked effect. Now-a-days the doctors are adding fenofibrate to statins to make it more effective. If the hypercholesterol is familial, it seems the statins are less effective. Please check with your doctor if you have familial hypercholesterol.

[NT77]

Another interesting thing I noticed is that most people here have way higher triglycerides then me, while on the carnivore forum most people have them lower then me. That makes sense, as I still eat carbs, just not that much. So in fact it's like this: low fat diet = high blood fat, and high fat/protein diet = low blood fat.

Since we ate a diet closer to mine for the past couple of hundred thousand years, and we eat grains only the last 15000 years, I guess everyone's cholesterol was high and triglycerides low back in the day, and perhaps that's how it's supposed to be. Either that, or our cholesterol system has erroneously evolved.

I'll stick with the animal fat and meat and let the body regulate itself the way it sees fit. A heart attack could make me consider letting Pfizer regulate my body, but until then I'll be betting on mother nature.

[erijon]

My diet was not that much different than now. I ate a little more fast food and red meat. I've gone to very little fast food and red meat a couple times per week. I think the increase in exercise along with some small dietary changes did it for me.

[NT77]

Sooo, I've done the lipid check this morning, and total cholesterol is even higher now at 383, HDL  is 62, and LDL calculated 290. Triglycerides are now lower at 66. Not exactly the numbers I expected so got little spooked immediatelly afterwards.

But then I found a forum with many people on similar diet as mine, and most of them had their cholesterol skyrocket after switching from veggies and grain to fat and meat. It looks to me as a natural reaction of the body, and I'll go with that.

Additionally, it hit me that almost all people on this here forum eat veggies, grain and fruit (the so called healthy food), yet many are on statins, some had a stroke, and so forth. May I ask Erijon, what was your diet like, before you began the statins?

Is there anybody here who ate lots of fat meat before they were put on statins?

[erijon]

Happy to share my liver enzymes. Here are the last three years;

ALT; 2011: 53    2012: 51    2013:51

AST; 2011:36    2012: 36    2013: 36

My 2005 numbers, the oldest I have copies of;

ALT: 53

AST: 35

[NT77]

I don't know exactly how that functions in US, but here in Europe we pay only a fraction of the drug price, the rest is paid in full by the government, through taxation.

Right, 48th this year. Was 40th last year, and it's not a negative thing. My point was: you don't get to the 48th place by selling peanuts.

You're kindda confusing me with the carbs. I was under the impression that all carbs metabolize to glucose... No? Is there more then one type of glucose in our blood?

Perhaps you guys are right about statins, perhaps not. Noone knows for sure. Actually my total cholesterol is 9 mmol/L nad I roughly calculated that to be around 370. Triglycerides are 2,2 mmol/L. Gonna do another check in 2 weeks (paid by the government), and insist they do a LDL/HDL ratio. We'll see how this develops...

You say you're on statins for 10 years... Would you please share your liver enzymes numbers if, perhaps, you know them?

[erijon]

Never said I took Lipitor, I take Simvastatin. I don't follow how any of my meds are or would be covered by taxes unless I'm on welfare or retired, I'm not either.

Also, why is it a negative to be the 40th largest corporation in the world? They are actually the 48th largest corporation in the world but the number one research based drug company in the world. Their product list;

http://www.pfizerpro.com/products

I would suggest their success has much more to it than statins.

Finally, I don't have any issue with carbs as a whole, just empty carbs that metabolize as simple sugars. Those are the killer. You are correct, it is a shift in our life style that has thrown off our natural balance. It goes beyond what we eat, it's what we breath as well. There are so many more ways to cause arterial inflammation today than in years past.

Good luck,

[NT77]

Huh... it says that an average annual cost of therapy with Lipitor 20mg per patient was $2140 last year. If that's what you're on, the rest is paid through taxes by everyone. Pfizer is the 40th largest company on the planet...

About fats: you're not reading me right, I still eat a lot of saturated fat, just dropped unsaturated down to a minimum. I firmly believe that unsaturated fat, too much carbohydrates, and lack of saturated fat in people's diets is the culprit behind many health issues.

After reading and thinking alot over the years, I've come to the conclusion that human body, unless born with a DNA error, is a wonderfully complex 'mechanism' that wants to live, and does all in it's power to do so. Obvious example, yet this struck me just last week, is our regenerating skin which doesn't need our help with drugs. Or our liver. If our DNA was correctly 'written', and something goes out of balance, it's us who's hindering the body from functioning correctly with some external factor: either drugs, or food, or the environment. If you think about it, every other living organism on this planet 'acts' in exactly the same way: it strongly wants to live. Plants included.

So, life really is beautiful :-)

[Flycaster305]

I pay $4.00 a month for my statin.  I do understand your rage, however, as there is no question that the opportunity for huge profits is built in to our present laws.  That said, you agree that statins reduce cholesterol, and your cholesterol is dangerously high.  A better form of protest might be lobbying for pharma reform rather than put your body at such high risk.
As I mentioned, I was in your condition and frame of mind when at your age, and followed a very strict diet and exercise regimen.  I was able to reduce my cholesterol to about 250, about 30%.  It just wasn't enough.  
Also, remember, there are other factors that contribute to CAD, most noteworthy diabetes.  As America grew fatter, so did CAD incidence rise.  

[erijon]

Really? I pay $12 a month for my statins, that's as cheap a drug as you'll find. New drugs need new research and expensive trials in order to get FDA approval, that's just a fact.

Cutting fats from your diet is a good thing, remember that only a small amount of the cholesterol in your system comes from what you eat. High cholesterol is mostly due to a person's body creating too much and it takes medical intervention to resolve that in most cases.

Everyone must make their own decision, I have studied statin trials for years and they do as advertised with very little risk. You need to do what works for you, I hope it works out.

Jon

[NT77]

They probably are.

Zoledronic acid was just an example where research was already done by someone else, for free. And it's certainly not the only case.

Well, my total cholesterol was 370 last week. According to Pfizer and others, it's just a matter of time... And I'm absolutely not gonna inhibit any part of my body, with statins or anything else. I guess time will tell who was right.

Meanwhile, I've cut the unsaturated fat consumption down to a minimum to see if it has any effect on the numbers. But as the o.p. suggested, the numbers we humans decided are right, may not be exactly consistent with how mother nature sees it.

[erijon]

Are they overcharging for statins? Do you know what it cost to get Lipitor on the market? That would be 250M (a conservative estimate by Pfizer), that's a quarter billion dollars. As it is Pfizer just had to cut 4.5 billion in R&D costs.

Who says they are over pricing? Statins are a complex compound where as zoledronic acid  is a simple bisphosphonate which requires much less development and testing including trials. Not all drugs are made equal.

[NT77]

It doesn't always take hundreds of millions of dollars to get the drug on the market. For example, zoledronic acid (for severe osteoporosis) was 'invented' a century ago and initially it was used for softening the water for orange plantations. Well, today it costs $300 per few milligrams. I fail to see how can this be justified by anything reasonable, other then using the circumstances to insanely overcharge the victims.

[erijon]

Wow, that's a lot of anti-statin sentiment. A few points;

The number is 50% of people that die of a heart attack have normal cholesterol levels. That is the most misleading statement floating around out there and people use it to discourage statin use. Here's what is not said, they had normal cholesterol AT THE TIME OF THEIR DEATH. They may have lived with high cholesterol for years creating blockages and once they are there, they don't go away. All it takes is one vulnerable plaque to cause a heart attack.

Drug companies make huge profits on statins, that's true and totally irrelevant. Do you realize how many hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to get a drug on the market? Of course they need to make a huge profit to make that investment payoff. What's wrong with free enterprise? Every one makes their own decision as a responsible patient, I don't take any drug unless I feel the benefit outweighs the risk.

Also, "THEY" do not recommend lower levels, the NCEP who is managed by the National Lung and Blood Institute which is managed by the National Institute of Health which is managed by the FDA who is managed by the US Department of Health and Human Services make the recommendations and the drug companies have nothing to do with it. You would have to believe that the Feds are being influenced by the drug companies, that doesn't make sense.

Most importantly are my numbers. TC141, HDL45 LDL 61. Also, after 10 years on a statin my liver functions have never been better. I believe in results, statins give me those results.

The question that needs to be answered by the scientific community is just how much cholesterol do we need? That's the $64 question.